[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/prog/perl$ cat /tmp/muttJwlFG4 Matthias Andree wrote: > Volker Kuhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I am able to distinguish stability with the stubbornness to insist on > > serving the stone-age first. One could express this also in terms of the > > least common Unix denominator, as the problem is not so rare. Nobody > > cares what burning CDs was like 10 years ago, and whether cdrecord came > > before burnfree. But of course setting defaults to suit a handful of > > people to match their 10-year old expectations instead of catering for > > 98% of today's(!!) users is your prerogative. > > This is pointless. You have the switch, you can use the switch, you are > told how to use it, and after all you aren't writing the code. > > The old observation still holds: he who writes the code gets to set the > rules. cdrecord separates mechanism from policy, so stop whining and > acting so helplessly. > > > It's not an important aspect of cdrecord though, as for most of > > today's users k3b fixes the problem anyway (I think, I don't use it > > myself). That doesn't however stop me from saying that by my own > > technical judgement, cdrecord's burnfree default is silly, when > > someone asks about the topic. > > You have a right to your opinion, but it isn't going to change > anything. You can waste energy on getting the defaults changed, or you > can invest some energy to write a /etc/default/... file.
Why do you want to create tons of switches when there is not need for them? Prueba el Nuevo Correo Terra; Seguro, Rápido, Fiable.
